Policy Transfer in Georgia: Lessons Drawn from NAEC

Abstract

The academic literature on policy transfer dates back several decades. Although it is well-known in comparative policy studies, the number of works published in the subfield must be more significant (Bertram, 2022). Policy transfer has always focused on comparative education (Forestier & Crossley, 2015). One of the best ways to assess facilitating and hindering factors of education policy transfer was to observe post-soviet drastic transformations (Silova & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008; SteinerKhamsi, 2012). As it was the process of transferring liberal and democratic educational values and policies, it can be studied with a policy transfer framework (Tabatadze et al., 2022). For some reason, the Georgian case of the post-soviet education transformation can be noteworthy. Firstly, before Rose Revolution, the Georgian education system was driven by Soviet Inertia (Kobakhidze, 2016), while after the post-revolution, the country's Euro-Atlantic integration was fostered (Tabatadze & Dundua, 2023a). Also, International NGOs played a crucial role in transforming the national education system (Tabatadze & Dundua, 2023b). One of the most important and successful projects is linked to establishing NAEC (World Bank, 2012). As a counter-reaction to the spread of corruption, this organization is seen as a successful tandem of policy change and transfer (Bakker, 2014; Gabedava, 2013; Gorgodze & Chakhaia, 2021). Although NAEC still plays a crucial role in the education system of Georgia, academic liter needs to include lacks papers relating to this institution or its policies. Some authors stress the importance of its meritocratic and anti-corrupt features (Bakker, 2014; Gabedava, 2013), while others point out that NAEC policies facilitated the private tutoring system, reduced the role of the national curriculum and its goals, and increased the inequality between entrants from urban and rural areas (Bregvadze, 2012; Chankseliani, 2013; Gorgodze & Chakhaia, 2021). Therefore, the thesis aims to examine the factors that facilitate and hinder policy transfer success based on the example of the National Assessment and Examination Center in Georgia. Therefore, the research question can be formulated as follows: What factors make policy transfer successful based on the case of NAEC? Due to the research design, qualitative research methods: case studies and in-depth interviews are used. NAEC and its policies are studied as descriptive and instrumental types of case studies. Also, the essential data is driven by semi-structured in-depth interviews with all stakeholders (including Georgian decision-makers and foreign consultants) in planning, implementing, and evaluating the policy transfer process. Using a targeting sampling, overall, 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted both face-to-face and online. Research ethics and main principles were guaranteed and protected. Results suggest that the three-part (causes-process-results) orthodox model allows us to examine why and how policy success or failure happens. Indeed, outlining facilitating and hindering factors helps determine NAEC's education policy transfer success (in process, programmatic, and political dimensions). Moreover, one of the most essential hindering factors of education policy transfer lies in the challenging sociocultural environment and unreadiness linked to societal fears and public myths. All of them were typical for post-soviet socio-economic development. Another critical factor linked to the post-socialist heritage is the centralized way of public administration. Despite the WB's will that NAEC should be an independent organization, supra-centralization, and administrative dependence were always Georgian governments' policy choices. These factors can be similar in all post-socialist states, reflecting how education administration is built and managed. Thirdly, the case of NAEC shows that if some facilitating factors coincide, the education policy transfer can succeed. Indeed, organizational, resource, political, and communication issues were coupled. The high professionalism and motivation of NAEC's leader and the team promoted the establishment of foreign policy transfer networks, adjusting the local contexts, and helpful and permanent communication with all stakeholders were crucial elements. However, it may only be as successful if pre-and-post revolutionary governments provide continuous political support.